Freeh report on Sandusky/PSU

[Buffacuse]

Totally blasts PSU leadership--including Paterno by name multiple times--for only caring about bad publicity for the school and having no concern whatsoever for the welfare of the kids. The net effect of this is kids kept getting abused for 14 more years.

To me, one factoid in the report is more shocking than anything else--Paterno, the AD, and the University President and VP never once talked to Sandusky about the situation/allegations. Never mentioned it once to him.

I hope JoePa's family has some other means of supporting his widow, because when this thing is over there is going to be nothing left in his estate.

More to the point--the report cited the "culture of reverence" for the football program as an important contributing factor to the situation. My answer to that--the NCAA should suspend it for one year. Don't kill it, don't take away scholarships, don't take away any of the current coaching salaries--just have one year of no football at "Happy" Valley so everyone can think about this every Saturday.

[christie1111]

My answer to that--the NCAA should suspend it for one year. Don't kill it, don't take away scholarships, don't take away any of the current coaching salaries--just have one year of no football at "Happy" Valley so everyone can think about this every Saturday.

And punish the football players who had nothing to do with this but worked their asses off to get onto the team.

Nope.

Not fair.

[silverscreenselect]

My answer to that--the NCAA should suspend it for one year. Don't kill it, don't take away scholarships, don't take away any of the current coaching salaries--just have one year of no football at "Happy" Valley so everyone can think about this every Saturday.

And punish the football players who had nothing to do with this but worked their asses off to get onto the team.

Nope.

Not fair.

It's also not fair to the years worth of children who continued to have their lives ruined at the hands of Sandusky because the school chose to put the football program ahead of innocent lives.

It's not fair but it's the best we can do. The team and fans will get over losing a year of football a lot quicker and easier than those children will get over being abused while the school president and athletic director (not to mention Paterno) chose to look the other way.

[Buffacuse]

My answer to that--the NCAA should suspend it for one year. Don't kill it, don't take away scholarships, don't take away any of the current coaching salaries--just have one year of no football at "Happy" Valley so everyone can think about this every Saturday.

And punish the football players who had nothing to do with this but worked their asses off to get onto the team.

Nope.

Not fair.

No--it's not fair to the kids on the team now. I'd give them all immediate releases and not take away any of their scholarships. But it's never fair when kids on a team now pay for what coaches/kids did years earlier but it happens all the time. What do we do--a bowl ban? Take away a few recruiting visits? Sorry, but what happened is so monstrous it has to merit one of the most severe penalties in NCAA history. Anything less is yet another massive unfairness to the kids who were victimized by an institution that cared not one iota for them.

Penn State has to pay for this in the one way it will hurt the most.

[Appa23]

Heck, I would go right along with Buff if not for one small problem: Penn State did not violate a single NCAA rule in turning a blind eye towards years of children being raped.

There was a very good article, either on espn.com or cnnsi.com, that addressed this type of knee-jerk reaction without looking at the actual facts as it related to the NCAA rules. It noted that while the NCAA cited Jim Tressel for some ethics-related matters, they still had a basis in an underlying NCAA violation, and it did not punish the school for Tressel's lying.

The short of it is: if Paterno was alive and coaching, he might have been disciplined. He might have had wins vacated, but Penn State should not be punished under the rules of the game.


Addition: Here is the article by Andy Staples: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/w ... =cf_bf4_a6

[silverscreenselect]

There was a very good article, either on espn.com or cnnsi.com, that addressed this type of knee-jerk reaction without looking at the actual facts as it related to the NCAA rules. It noted that while the NCAA cited Jim Tressel for some ethics-related matters, they still had a bais in an underlying NCAA violation, and it did not punish the school for Tressel's lying.

That poor dumb jerk Tressel. If only he'd lied about something like children being raped instead of something serious like players getting free tattoos, he'd still be leading the team onto the field next month.

[Appa23]

There was a very good article, either on espn.com or cnnsi.com, that addressed this type of knee-jerk reaction without looking at the actual facts as it related to the NCAA rules. It noted that while the NCAA cited Jim Tressel for some ethics-related matters, they still had a bais in an underlying NCAA violation, and it did not punish the school for Tressel's lying.

That poor dumb jerk Tressel. If only he'd lied about something like children being raped instead of something serious like players getting free tattoos, he'd still be leading the team onto the field next month.

Nope. He'd still be gone because he was in charge of such a troubled program.

As Staples (and others have noted), you will get your pound of flesh from those responsible, so you need not worry.


I will be interested to see the media coverage here, as Spanier used to the the Chancellor at Nebraska and Osborne and Paterno had an "old football coach" friendship. Plus, Osborne himself has a huge mentoring program called Teammates.

[silverscreenselect]

From the Staples article cited by Appa:

Even without Repeat Violator status, the NCAA has the latitude to apply penalties that would mimic the Death Penalty and effectively cripple Penn State's football program. John Infante, the author of the excellent Bylaw Blog, explained that any major violation that reflects a lack of institutional control would allow the NCAA to issue a one-year ban on outside competition. Infante added that the NCAA's Committee on Infractions also could impose scholarship sanctions. If the committee chose, it could wipe out an entire recruiting class.

What rule would the NCAA claim Penn State broke? Ohio State fans should be intimately familiar with Bylaw 10.1, which forbids Unethical Conduct. The NCAA manual includes a list of circumstances in which 10.1 would apply, but makes sure to leave it open-ended by using the phrase "may include, but is not limited to." This bylaw is the NCAA's catch-all, and it usually is used to hammer coaches or administrators who lie to NCAA investigators. Conceivably, the NCAA could tag former athletic department employees Paterno, Curley and Mike McQueary with violations of Bylaw 10.1 for their failure to act after McQueary said he witnessed Sandusky raping a boy in a shower. (Cumulatively, these violations could draw the Lack of Institutional Control charge.) I studied 177 cases involving violations of 10.1 last year for a column about Jim Tressel, and every one of those 10.1 violations was attached to another violation of an existing NCAA rule. To apply it without attaching it to another violation would also be an extraordinary precedent.

An extraordinarily dangerous precedent.

If the schools that run the NCAA alter their own rules for an ex post facto smashing of Penn State, they would essentially empower the NCAA for all sorts of retroactive enforcement. How would Oregon feel if the NCAA could rewrite the rulebook after the fact to ban payments to street agents? Oregon has mounted a defense of its $25,000 payment in 2010 to bogus recruiting service operator Will Lyles, and the program just might get away with it without suffering dire consequences. Existing NCAA rules manage dealings with boosters, but they say little about handlers. Given the power to juke the rules, the NCAA could say it always meant to outlaw payments to handlers. Since Oregon paid Lyles by check, it wouldn't have any defense. You may consider that justice in the Oregon case, but it would be patently un-American justice. The framers of the U.S. Constitution didn't even wait until the Bill of Rights to ban ex post facto laws, which would allow the government to punish someone for an act that was legal when the person committed it.

So what it boils down to is that the NCAA does have the authority, but it would set a dangerous precedent because it might someday be extended to something like a payment to a handler.

What a load of bull.

The NCAA has lost nearly all credibility for levying heavy sanctions for "covering up" or "failing to cooperate" investigations into tattoos and gym suits. Now they're expected to give a pass to covering up serious felonies because it would set a dangerous precedent. I hope it would set a precedent. Namely to put institutional controls in place at every college to make sure that what happened at Penn State couldn't happen again.

[silverscreenselect]

From today's article by Staples (he still stands by his earlier belief the NCAA should do nothing):

How big of a scumbag is [school president Graham] Spanier? When the men decided in 2001 that they wouldn't report Sandusky to any law enforcement agency, Spanier praised [athletic director Tim] Curley's bravery in an e-mail sent at 10:18 p.m. on Feb. 27, 2001:

"Tim: This approach is reasonable to me. It requires you to go a step further and means your conversation [with Sandusky] will be all the more difficult, but I admire your willingness to do that and I am supportive. The only downside for us is that if the message isn't heard and acted upon, then we become vulnerable for not having reported it. But that can be assessed down the road."

Here we are, down the road.

This is what happens when the reputation of the football program is more important than protecting children from a rapist.

[christie1111]

From today's article by Staples (he still stands by his earlier belief the NCAA should do nothing):

How big of a scumbag is [school president Graham] Spanier? When the men decided in 2001 that they wouldn't report Sandusky to any law enforcement agency, Spanier praised [athletic director Tim] Curley's bravery in an e-mail sent at 10:18 p.m. on Feb. 27, 2001:

"Tim: This approach is reasonable to me. It requires you to go a step further and means your conversation [with Sandusky] will be all the more difficult, but I admire your willingness to do that and I am supportive. The only downside for us is that if the message isn't heard and acted upon, then we become vulnerable for not having reported it. But that can be assessed down the road."

Here we are, down the road.

This is what happens when the reputation of the football program is more important than protecting children from a rapist.

They should punish the people who covered it up. To the fullest extent of the law.

And I hope Sandusky burns in hell. Actully, I hope for much worse things for him.

[BigDrawMan]

graham spanier has a phd in sociology, and has been a distinguished researcher in family sociology,

He has written 10 books, including:

The Child in the Family

Human Sexuality in a changing society

Adolescent development

Child Influences on Marital and family interaction

[BigDrawMan]

My answer to that--the NCAA should suspend it for one year. Don't kill it, don't take away scholarships, don't take away any of the current coaching salaries--just have one year of no football at "Happy" Valley so everyone can think about this every Saturday.

And punish the football players who had nothing to do with this but worked their asses off to get onto the team.

Nope.

Not fair.

No--it's not fair to the kids on the team now. I'd give them all immediate releases and not take away any of their scholarships. But it's never fair when kids on a team now pay for what coaches/kids did years earlier but it happens all the time. What do we do--a bowl ban? Take away a few recruiting visits? Sorry, but what happened is so monstrous it has to merit one of the most severe penalties in NCAA history. Anything less is yet another massive unfairness to the kids who were victimized by an institution that cared not one iota for them.

Penn State has to pay for this in the one way it will hurt the most.

the "unfairness" issue was a big reason why there was a 14 year coverup

the ncaa could penalize pennst based on their lack of institutional control, though it will take someone with enormous testicular fortitude to do so.

[Beebs52]

graham spanier has a phd in sociology, and has been a distinguished researcher in family sociology,

He has written 10 books, including:

The Child in the Family

Human Sexuality in a changing society

Adolescent development

Child Influences on Marital and family interaction

So much for book learnin'.

[Sistine Fanny]

And punish the football players who had nothing to do with this but worked their asses off to get onto the team.

Nope.

Not fair.

No--it's not fair to the kids on the team now. I'd give them all immediate releases and not take away any of their scholarships. But it's never fair when kids on a team now pay for what coaches/kids did years earlier but it happens all the time. What do we do--a bowl ban? Take away a few recruiting visits? Sorry, but what happened is so monstrous it has to merit one of the most severe penalties in NCAA history. Anything less is yet another massive unfairness to the kids who were victimized by an institution that cared not one iota for them.

Penn State has to pay for this in the one way it will hurt the most.

Except to their parents, 18-22 year olds are not kids. They're adults.

And, no, it's not fair. But birth certificates don't come with a fair guarantee on them. The sad fact of the matter is, when they raid the whorehouse they take the piano player, too.

Spoiler

Dadism!

But, honestly, hasn't this whole investigation/trial/etc thing been going on publicly for a couple three years now? So, really, it would only be the seniors (and possibly juniors) that I'd feel for on this. The younger classes had to know that there would be possible repercussions and/or sanctions on the program itself so if they chose to sign up anyway, that's on them.

[mrkelley23]

I would be willing to support a one year ban for Penn State's football program just as soon as someone tells the Catholic church they can't hold services for one year.

[SpacemanSpiff]

I saw this blurb, via SI.com:

http://articles.philly.com/2012-07-12/n ... eeh-report

Very Soviet of whoever ran the TVs there.

[BigDrawMan]

that channel. PCNC, carried the freeh news conference an hour later

the joepa statue at beaver stadium is under guard

[SpacemanSpiff]

that channel. PCNC, carried the freeh news conference an hour later

the joepa statue at beaver stadium is under guard

...lest some frat boy put a soap-on-a-rope around the statue's neck.

[Weyoun]

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with nuking PSU because it makes everyone feel better.

Note that I actually think the culpability runs deeper. If you mess around on the internet long enough, you'll see people on message boards call the Sandusky investigation - and this is well before the indictment - an "extinction level event" for the school. Someone knew something around 2010, it sounds like, despite efforts to keep the investigation close to the chest of the State Attorney. I have a feeling that Sandusky's problems were known by more than a few people - probably at the Second Mile, but also football boosters and those sorts.

So I say this with the understanding that I think there was a quite a bit of corruption there, and as a Pitt guy I'm happy beyond belief to see PSU embarrassed. At my school, some of the most snotty, entitled kids are "Honors College" graduates from PSU - meanwhile the kids from Harvard just show up and do what they're told.

But what would nuking PSU accomplish? Blood lust? I thought that's why we didn't have the death penalty in some states, SSS!

Would it help the kids? No, a big legal settlement will help the kids. So keeping PSU football in business will actually help with that.

And then there's the fact that you're telling completely random people to suffer to make us all feel better. You're a 58 year old African American gentleman who makes money on the side working PSU games in the fall. Or you're a family who leases your parking lot for games. But your school harbored a child molester, so you'll just have to do without Christmas this year, sorry.

It seems that most people actually have an issue with Big Time College Football, thinking that if this was at Merck and you were a big time researcher, people wouldn't be as inclined to cover up for you. Or the Catholic Church mess. It's true, Paterno became very powerful because of college football. But there are powerful people everywhere, and they make mistakes. When you have a war you don't like (pick one), the answer isn't to get rid of the military or the office of the President, but to be more vigilant for the next time around, and to punish those who acted improperly.

[Beebs52]

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with nuking PSU because it makes everyone feel better.

Note that I actually think the culpability runs deeper. If you mess around on the internet long enough, you'll see people on message boards call the Sandusky investigation - and this is well before the indictment - an "extinction level event" for the school. Someone knew something around 2010, it sounds like, despite efforts to keep the investigation close to the chest of the State Attorney. I have a feeling that Sandusky's problems were known by more than a few people - probably at the Second Mile, but also football boosters and those sorts.

So I say this with the understanding that I think there was a quite a bit of corruption there, and as a Pitt guy I'm happy beyond belief to see PSU embarrassed. At my school, some of the most snotty, entitled kids are "Honors College" graduates from PSU - meanwhile the kids from Harvard just show up and do what they're told.

But what would nuking PSU accomplish? Blood lust? I thought that's why we didn't have the death penalty in some states, SSS!

Would it help the kids? No, a big legal settlement will help the kids. So keeping PSU football in business will actually help with that.

And then there's the fact that you're telling completely random people to suffer to make us all feel better. You're a 58 year old African American gentleman who makes money on the side working PSU games in the fall. Or you're a family who leases your parking lot for games. But your school harbored a child molester, so you'll just have to do without Christmas this year, sorry.

It seems that most people actually have an issue with Big Time College Football, thinking that if this was at Merck and you were a big time researcher, people wouldn't be as inclined to cover up for you. Or the Catholic Church mess. It's true, Paterno became very powerful because of college football. But there are powerful people everywhere, and they make mistakes. When you have a war you don't like (pick one), the answer isn't to get rid of the military or the office of the President, but to be more vigilant for the next time around, and to punish those who acted improperly.

I guess I could see removing any statues or whatever of Joe Paterno. That's a pretty big emblem of what might have been inspiration and has turned wretched. I'm not sure penalizing everybody who had nothing to do with this is right.

[jarnon]

The statue's still there, but his halo (in a mural) is gone.

Artist paints over Paterno's halo on Pa. mural

[BackInTex]

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with nuking PSU because it makes everyone feel better.

That's why they are in this mess to begin with. They cared about feelings and not what is and isn't right.

Nuking the football program would be like baptism. In the scheme of things it is worth nothing, but it would symbolize that the university does not hold the football program above all else.

It should be done.

[silverscreenselect]

But what would nuking PSU accomplish? Blood lust? I thought that's why we didn't have the death penalty in some states, SSS!

Would it help the kids? No, a big legal settlement will help the kids. So keeping PSU football in business will actually help with that.

And then there's the fact that you're telling completely random people to suffer to make us all feel better. You're a 58 year old African American gentleman who makes money on the side working PSU games in the fall. Or you're a family who leases your parking lot for games. But your school harbored a child molester, so you'll just have to do without Christmas this year, sorry.

First, the people who had nothing to do with this have benefitted for years as a result of Penn State's successfully sweeping things under the rug. It's hard to believe that Penn State football won't take a hit as a result of this attendance and contribution wise, but by successfully enabling a child molester for a decade, they've avoided the worst of the damage. The "message" you'd send the next Penn State is to do a better job at covering things up.

Second, those responsible for Sandusky didn't just turn a blind eye to what he did. They actively enabled his molesting by continuing to give him unrestricted access to the Penn State athletic facilities. It wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the lure of being to show pre-teen boys a behind-the-scenes look at the Penn State stadium and other facilities would be an enormous aid to Sandusky in getting those boys into a situation in which he could force himself on them. It would be similar to Disney turning its back while a child molester took kids on private tours of Disney World.

Third, and in my view most important, this entire situation arose because Spanier, Curley, Paterno, and the others had a warped idea of priorities (much the same as Nixon had after the Watergate break-in). For them, maintaining the image of Penn State football was paramount. By slamming Penn State hard, now, the NCAA sends a message that the image of a school's football program is not more important than protecting children from a predator. Let the school slide and the message you send to the next school is that as long as you can get away with it for "a while," you're okay.

So what happens at the next school if the star quarterback kills somebody and the coach, AD, and president help dispose of the body. Is the message we send to that school, just make sure you do a better job of concealing the evidence?

[mrkelley23]

But what would nuking PSU accomplish? Blood lust? I thought that's why we didn't have the death penalty in some states, SSS!

Would it help the kids? No, a big legal settlement will help the kids. So keeping PSU football in business will actually help with that.

And then there's the fact that you're telling completely random people to suffer to make us all feel better. You're a 58 year old African American gentleman who makes money on the side working PSU games in the fall. Or you're a family who leases your parking lot for games. But your school harbored a child molester, so you'll just have to do without Christmas this year, sorry.

First, the people who had nothing to do with this have benefitted for years as a result of Penn State's successfully sweeping things under the rug. It's hard to believe that Penn State football won't take a hit as a result of this attendance and contribution wise, but by successfully enabling a child molester for a decade, they've avoided the worst of the damage. The "message" you'd send the next Penn State is to do a better job at covering things up.

Second, those responsible for Sandusky didn't just turn a blind eye to what he did. They actively enabled his molesting by continuing to give him unrestricted access to the Penn State athletic facilities. It wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the lure of being to show pre-teen boys a behind-the-scenes look at the Penn State stadium and other facilities would be an enormous aid to Sandusky in getting those boys into a situation in which he could force himself on them. It would be similar to Disney turning its back while a child molester took kids on private tours of Disney World.

Third, and in my view most important, this entire situation arose because Spanier, Curley, Paterno, and the others had a warped idea of priorities (much the same as Nixon had after the Watergate break-in). For them, maintaining the image of Penn State football was paramount. By slamming Penn State hard, now, the NCAA sends a message that the image of a school's football program is not more important than protecting children from a predator. Let the school slide and the message you send to the next school is that as long as you can get away with it for "a while," you're okay.

So what happens at the next school if the star quarterback kills somebody and the coach, AD, and president help dispose of the body. Is the message we send to that school, just make sure you do a better job of concealing the evidence?

I disagree with your premise that, somehow, the NCAA has a way of deterring big colleges from engaging in this sort of behavior. If the example you cite does show up, then QB, coach, AD, and president should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of THE LAW, because that is what they have broken. I've not seen the very thick book from the NCAA about its rules, but I'd bet pretty good money that it neither has sections on covering up child molestations or moving dead bodies.

Most people in favor of the NCAA taking punitive action is because this is about "lack of institutional control." If that's the case, then what if it had been an English professor, the department chair, the dean and the president? Should they kill the football program at that university?

The flip side of the "send a message" deterrent argument is the just-as-strong argument that the next university that decides to engage in a coverup will just be much more careful about leaving any kind of evidence behind. Do you truly think Watergate has prevented Presidential staffs from engaging in coverups (Whitewater, anyone? OK, in SSS's case, Abu Ghraib, anyone?)?

[silverscreenselect]

Most people in favor of the NCAA taking punitive action is because this is about "lack of institutional control." If that's the case, then what if it had been an English professor, the department chair, the dean and the president? Should they kill the football program at that university?

Other than the fact that the English department would not be covering up criminal behavior of a professor for the sake of the football program, I don't see any problems with your analogy.

Football (and at some schools basketball) programs have assumed a life and importance far beyond any academic program at many universities. If you see the record of what went on at Penn State, this wasn't just some "gentleman's agreement" to look the other way to avoid getting involved in a messy situation (something I could well see happening in other departments). It was an active and ongoing effort to cover things up that went on for over a decade while pre-teen boys continued to be assaulted in Penn State athletic facilities. Would Spanier, Curley, Paterno, et al allowed their children or grandchildren to spend hours alone with Sandusky? Of course not. But they had no qualms about allowing this to happen to other children because the football program was too important and the image of the school and Paterno was too important to allow a few children's lives or a predator like Sandusky to bring it down.

Whatever one thinks about what happened at SMU 20 years ago, there's no question but that the scale of recruitment abuse has gone down considerably since then, and it's not just because wealthy alumni and boosters have gotten cheaper. Instead of cars and non-existant high paying "part time jobs," we get free tattoos and athletic gear. Slam Penn State hard and it's less likely any other school will have this happen again in the future.